Ambrose LI wrote:
> 2009/10/20 Michael Stowe <mstowe AT chicago.us.mensa DOT org>:
>> If you're going to keep all those incrementals, I wouldn't recommend doing
>> full backups any less frequently than every two weeks or so, which is
>> often the point at which they become as slow or slower than full backups.
> 
> I'm not sure if I can agree with this, since this is definitely not my
> experience. Even after a month, there are pc's on my network where
> incrementals (rsync-based) still run significantly faster than fulls.

The thing that makes full rsync's slow (after the initial copy) is that 
the --ignore-times option is set for them but not incrementals.  This 
makes the target host read the whole file and send block checksums even 
in cases where the filename, timestamp, and size match.  There is some 
value to this in verifying that the contents match and can be read 
without errors but I think it would be nice if the frequency of this 
check could be decoupled from the other things that happen in a full run.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/